Contrary to popular belief and AI summaries, Mark Twain must have been born and raised in Las Cruces. He must have known the town, as it was then, to be “the first place.” So it is no surprise that latter-day idiots recently returned three incumbents to the Board of Education who have no serious interest in public education. Their interests are facilities, equipment, administrators, administrative staff, coaches, and teachers. Their interest is not education; they are not concerned with policies about curriculum, teaching, or standards of educational achievement. They have two concerns about students: attendance, which is the basis of some state funding, and graduation rates, which mean to placate parents and state officials.
These views elaborate the implied message of the citizen comment which I delivered Tuesday, 20 January, at the School Board meeting.
My name is Michael Hays. I am a resident of Las Cruces. I speak from an extensive and diverse background in education. I have to elaborate however immodest it may seem to be. I was a teacher for 45 years in private single-sex and public coed high schools, and in community colleges and 4-year universities, in nine states, including New Mexico, and in the District of Columbia. I have a master’s degree in secondary education from Cornell University, permanent certification in New York, and an award for distinguished teaching from the University of Michigan, from which I received a Ph.D. in English. I am a published scholar in my field, with a book and about a dozen articles. In addition to being a teacher and scholar, I was a long-time PTA activist in public education.
As a community member, I read with interest the 21 November Las Cruces Bulletin account of the views held by the three re-elected board members. I am unimpressed by what they say is most important—none of it new—and am appalled by what they do not say at all.
Absenteeism remains a problem; no one can teach students not in class—a point to which I shall return. Commendable but not mission-critical are continuing efforts to make transportation flexible enough to accommodate tutoring and extra-curricular activities. Also commendable are continuing programs which prepare students for non-college career tracks after graduation. But I suspect that such programs also serve as excuses for not expecting proficiency by all students in all basic academic subjects. Graduates in technical education should not be hindered by their lack of proficiency in these basics from advancing in their career, changing career, or seeking additional education.
Here’s the rub. Some board members believe that the District should accept that not all students can master basics like the multiplication table and should be satisfied with any learning which they acquire. I have no idea how many such students there are, but I deplore board members’ low expectations which reflect a student-centered approach to education and their disregard of reasonable standards of academic achievement. No re-elected member even mentioned the District’s continued record of poor student performance, with percentages of average proficiency in reading in the 30s and in math in the 20s.
In my view, anyone employed by the District content with this dismal level of academic performance is contemptuous of its students and indifferent to their education. In closing, I offer the conjecture that absenteeism might reflect absentees’ belief that a school district which teaches so little and cares so little about teaching so little is not worth their time or trouble.
The audience reaction was what I expected: silence, stoney faces, and stares forward to avoid looking at me as I left. I credit Dr. Wendi Miller-Tomlinson, Deputy Superintendent, who accosted me in the hall outside the auditorium, with inviting me to meet with her to discuss my ideas for improvement. Although we had met previously, I declined another meeting because, as I said to her, she was the professional, she knew what needed to be done, but she faced a Board and probably a Superintendent with no interest in the effort to improve student education.
Still, I did make two of three or four points which I would have raised again. I stressed the importance of the basics in both English and math. I said that, although the state curriculum implied the study of grammar, District teachers, especially elementary school teachers do not know it and, of course, do not teach it. I said that a capability in grammar was not just to avoid errors or note others’ lapses, but also to improve reading, writing, and thinking because a capability in grammar focuses attention on words. I noted the high correlation between ignorance of grammar and poor reading proficiency. I added that not ensuring the basics of math in the elementary grades promised difficulty or failure in later math courses and on-the-job tasks which might involve math (like making correct change).
As I talked with her previously, I would have repeated the importance of reading, not snippets in the current core-curriculum compatible textbooks (designed for testing purposes), but works—poems, short stories, plays, novels—in their entirety. At a time when students get little more than snippets on social media, they should be engaging more, more extended, and more challenging effort in school. If the District were at all serious—I doubt that it is at all serious—about critical thinking, it would realize that it can only be achieved by thinking based on knowledge in many subjects, not digesting assorted bits and pieces to pass proficiency tests.
The alternative to these and other subject-matter-oriented reforms is more of the same, more of what we already have: students poorly educated, with little knowledge, few skills, and no aspirations worthy of the name—that is, what God made them.
No comments:
Post a Comment